I've heard, that for their honours year in an undergrad degree, people who get a 2A are more successful than people who get a first. One reason a 2A graduate gave is that it closes them out of the esoteric, idealistic academic life of chasing perfection. Also, in practice, if you aren't comfortable with your head in the clouds, being able to effortlessly hold abstract arguments in your head, you won't be attracted to it. My high school was streamed, and the "top" class was a little airy-headed.
I think another reason might be that if you aren't quite as intelligent, the thing you learn is school is how to make an effort - and that skill is more valuable than any of the subject matter. This is related to whether you believe one is born smart/dumb, or you believe that your intelligence is affected (or even, effected) by your efforts:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-secret-to-raising-sm...
Also, for a start-up, if you are intelligent enough to work things out, but only with great effort, then you are: (1). dumb enough to identify with the problems of ordinary people (customers/users) (2). capable enough to do something about it. The reason I stress the "dumb" in (1) is because I pride myself on being a member of this group (especially when I'm frustrated by something that the really smart people genuinely think is "obvious" and "trivial" - their intelligence sets them apart so much that they are incapable of helping ordinary people).
I think there's another factor, that being extremely capable and talented relative to your peers can make it harder for you be aware of, to acknowledge, and to appreciate the unknown - that nature's imagination is greater than your imagination (Feynman).
Of course, some extraordinarily capable people don't fall prey to any of these dangers - and they really accomplish things.
Can you give an example of startup that would benefit by solving problems that are trivial to the really smart people? I can't think of one. All good technology that's designed to be suitable to "dumb" people is equally suitable to smart people (e.g. Google, Ebay, Amazon), it seems to me. Smart people like things that are intuitive and no more complicated than necessary, just like everyone else. (Or so I've heard).
You're right, but you're asking a slightly different question from me.
I agree with you about google etc, and that intuitiveness and simplicity benefit smart people as well as dumb people. Also, a smart person is sometimes a dumb person - when tired, unwell, upset or when they need to concentrate on something more demanding.
Although a smart person will benefit from it once it exists, what I'm saying is that the smart person won't be the one to do it, if it seems too easy for them, because they don't feel the frustration. In fact, if it's easy for them but hard for others, it may give them a little ego boost, which they'd like to keep.
Another aspect is smart people who do not like to acknowledge that they are sometimes dumb people... Also, a person with much intellectual effort invested in the old way is less likely to adopt the new one - and even less likely to be the one to change it. This isn't precisely smartness, but a kind of education.
- programming languages are often slow to be adopted by expert users of the old way, including those who are very smart; these people aren't the ones to create the new language in the first place.
- computerized legal systems - lawyers are smart, but reluctant to change, probably because they have so much invested in learning what they have already. Similar may be true of doctors, dentists and civil engineers.
Perhaps whenever anyone says "but that's trivial", "it seems clear to me", "that's so easy, why can't you understand", "you're stupid" that their attitude is a flag that this is something worth looking at...
Thanks for your comment, I like your point of view.
I think another reason might be that if you aren't quite as intelligent, the thing you learn is school is how to make an effort - and that skill is more valuable than any of the subject matter. This is related to whether you believe one is born smart/dumb, or you believe that your intelligence is affected (or even, effected) by your efforts: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-secret-to-raising-sm...
Also, for a start-up, if you are intelligent enough to work things out, but only with great effort, then you are: (1). dumb enough to identify with the problems of ordinary people (customers/users) (2). capable enough to do something about it. The reason I stress the "dumb" in (1) is because I pride myself on being a member of this group (especially when I'm frustrated by something that the really smart people genuinely think is "obvious" and "trivial" - their intelligence sets them apart so much that they are incapable of helping ordinary people).
I think there's another factor, that being extremely capable and talented relative to your peers can make it harder for you be aware of, to acknowledge, and to appreciate the unknown - that nature's imagination is greater than your imagination (Feynman).
Of course, some extraordinarily capable people don't fall prey to any of these dangers - and they really accomplish things.